Bose 901 sound test by TonePub?

mostly kidding, but i'm betting he'll try to discredit the review without them.

 

I still own a pair of 901 Series I which I'm not using currently. LOL. I bought them in 1970 with a Mac 1700 which I still use but with other speakers. For 1970 they sounded great and people "THOUGHT" that I had the greatest sound system. These speakers would trick you! It was all about placement and room acoustics. I have hung them from the ceiling in the corners for best effect. I'm planning to hang them again in my garage ceiling corners come this summer. I need some sound/noise happening there and they will fit the bill. BOSE were a big part of the past culture, they are the relics of today.

 

"I've re-engineered my original Bose 901s. They are now a two way bi-amplified speaker using 4 equalizers. I'll put them up against Peter Qvortrup's best effort."

Wow. Epic. A thread like that is why the internet keeps growing.

 

I am so excited for this review. Looking at the counts on this thread, there should be A LOT of interests in the review. Be sure to take lots of pictures too. Some nuddies would be cool too.

 

Isn't there an option 'D' where you replace your current reference speakers with the 901s? Ok, that isn't fair, but you may enjoy them enough that you just can't let them go.

 

Sell them to the Mad Men TV show! The 901s came out a bit after the time period the show takes place, but their mid-century modern styling, particularly when paired with their flared metal pedestals, would fit right in with that program's set decor (the black 901s look particularly slick IMO).

 

Nobody will know the difference. Nucky Thompson has modern day Waterman ink bottles on his desk even though Boardwalk Empire is set in the first quarter of the twentieth centrury.

 

I have made the following suggestion to HFSG at AC

"The 901s I owned years ago, as well as the 800(professional version) had grills that were removable via velcro tabs. If they are not removable now its because Bose did not intend them to be removed. Have you complained to Bose about this? I'm sure you and JD could come to some sort of an agreement provided you agree to purchase the test samples after the modification. Payment in advance of course. Otherwise it MIGHT be incumbent upon you to STFU."

It took him less than half an hour to decline.

 

I'm very impressed with Jeff's editorial attitude of going out and paying for a review pair.

When I reviewed products for Consumers Digest magazine (for 20 years), we actually did get review samples from Bose from time to time. Several times, we'd call them up and say, "hey, we need an address to send these back," and they'd say, "don't bother -- we've already written them off. Do anything you want with them." As our policy, we never sold them, but I did give a few away to friends and relatives. I think I wound up with four or five different Wave Radios over the years, which we did review favorably (as a clock radio). Never gave anything else a recommendation. And my editor was reluctant to print negative reviews.

I was never impressed with the concept of putting lots of little drivers in a speaker, including a bunch on the back side of the cabinet. It just seemed goofy to me. But the 901's don't sound awful -- just a little strange. And that active equalizer they has does a lotta stuff. You oughta hear them without the magic box... ooofah!

 

Or sell them to the 'Mythbusters'. Let them test out the 'myths' surrounding these speakers!

Maybe the review could finish with these questions:
-Would these speakers be suitable for someone who doesn't care about music? Probably.

-Would these speakers be suitable for someone who really cares about music and sound? Probably not.

 

I'm starting to like the Hardware forum.

 

I remember some old threads here with posts about earlier variants of the 901 being better than what came later. Possibly the original and/or the Series II (it's been a while...)?

 

Holt's Stereophile review was interesting. I would characterize the 901 sound as "smeared" and Holt gave the technical explanation for this. You can reduce the smear by increasing the ratio of direct sound -- listening to the 901's placed backwards. They sound more direct with the grilles off, too.

"...we doubt that the 901 will appeal to perfectionists who have developed a taste for subtleties of detail and timbre"

Not much more needs to be said. I submit that due to the design, even if the drivers were all as near perfection as our technology could make them, the sound would still be smeared, because of all the reflections. So, there is no real fix. If one likes the diffuse forgiving sound, that's fine. Not my cup of tea. I can't remember how long I owned mine. A year or two, perhaps.

 

Oddly enough, I can't recall a test of any other multi-directional speaker (MBL, Magnepan, Quad, Martin-Logan, Definitive Technology, etc.) where the sound was described as "smeared". Why would only Bose suffer this affliction?

I've read the Holt review of the 901. It seemed to me he just couldn't get past the design concept enough to really be objective. After all this would have been the late sixties or early seventies. The 901 was pretty radical then. And apparently still is.

\

 

As long as you have them, why not have some fun with them? With that many wide-range drivers, you could rebuild them into line arrays. Stick a ribbon tweeter on top, add a good 12" for bottom, and you'd have a fairly impressive speaker system.

 

Nope. A very sweet 80W Sony ES mos-fet integrated.

 

If I remember Bose's literature correctly, that's the whole point of these speakers' existence, to create a sonic environment consisting of 12% direct sound and 88% reflected sound, which IIRC is supposedly what the audience hears in the typical concert venue.

 

I've got a better idea, why don't you paypal me $1,400 I'll ship em to you after the review and you can make them into Frankenspeakers.

I'll take the money and buy some records.

 

I was going to argue with you, but I just checked the 901's manual:

89% by reflection 11% by direct radiation

Yikes...

http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/speakers/stereo_speakers/901_speakers/index.jsp

 

89% - 11%. Yep!

Reviews are great! But, at the end of the day, a person should by what sounds good to them.

When I owned the 901 Series IV's, I first had them on the chrome stands. Then; I used the optional macrame hangers. They rocked pretty good! And, when I had them cranked up, they would swing back and forth a little. Placement is everything.
And, all of my friends really enjoyed them as well. I gave them up in a divorce. That would have been 1984.

 

As Holt pointed out, the reflections in a live setting would be arriving at the ear with a much longer time delay than you get from just bouncing them off the back and side walls of your typical living room. The timing of the reflected sound makes all the difference, I would posit.

 

I thought we'd prefer to hear the sound reflections of the recording environment and not of the playback environment. I don't want to hear the sound of my room, but rather the recording studio. Seems to me that the way to do this is to treat the monitoring environment in such a way that the listener is allowed to hear into the recording.

The 89-11 thing is preposterous. I suppose that I'd have to remove my treatments in order to hear the intentional reflections properly?! Seriously??

 

As for Magnepan, Quad, and Martin-Logan, the reflected sound would be at most 50%, and that is only at certain frequencies. I owned Magnepan MG-II for quite a while. I think because of the greater beaming of higher frequencies, the proportion of reflected sound at mids and highs is much less than that of the Bose 901. Much of the rear wave will be absorbed (frequency dependent, and room treatment dependent). So I think there's nearly an order of magnitude difference between the "smearing" reflections coming from planar speakers and speakers like Bose 901.

Objectively, they sound smeared. Less so in my case, as I turned them around and listened to them backwards. I really couldn't stand the indistinctness of them when using them as intended, with 89% reflected sound. But hey, if somebody else likes the confusing but pleasant shmushing of sound produced by such a design, who am I to argue? Buy what you like. It is what it is.